• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Should we QUIT platform-evolution?

eloyesp

eloyesp

New member
I've posted this on the telegram (here: t dot me / dash_chat/292948 )

The idea is to think (in a fact based approach) if may be it is better to just abandon the platform project, based on the ideas of this book: powerofus . substack . com/p/interview-with-annie-duke-on-quit (disclaimer: I've just read a review in my mother language).
 
hqdefault.jpg
 
eloyesp said:
I've posted this on the telegram (here: t dot me / dash_chat/292948 )

The idea is to think (in a fact based approach) if may be it is better to just abandon the platform project, based on the ideas of this book: powerofus . substack . com/p/interview-with-annie-duke-on-quit (disclaimer: I've just read a review in my mother language).
Click to expand...

Other projects have already beaten us to much of platforms functionality by a few years and don't seem to be booming on account of it. Personally I think Dapps, advanced tokens etc. have practically limitless potential and are well worth perusing but how long that actually takes to take off is anyones guess and without a significant edge we're just another "me too" player at this stage. Even with an edge there's still every chance of ending up as another myspace, could be better looking for problems that need solutions rather than building a killer solution and waiting for the problems to come to us.
 
Running Platform only on a small portion of the network by raising the collateral to either 4.000 dash (4K HPM) or 10.000 dash (10K HPM) could lead to less decentralization on Dash masternode network (as a number of masternode whales with a lot of masternodes will move to Platform, causing a decline in number of masternodes) and a centralization of HPM nodes on Dash Platform. This centralization on Platform will also play a role if DCG decides in the nearby future that only HPM nodes gets to decide what types of content is allowed on Platform. This could easily lead to just a few masternode whales deciding this (5 masternode whales in case of 10K HPM, even less then 5 masternode whales if this 10K HPM group turns out to be even smaller then mnowatch.org currently projects (138 10K HPM's).

I will await the upcoming extensive FAQ about the viable solutions that DCG is working on, so i have a better picture what solutions to start Dash Platform are likely to hit the network to vote on. So far there has been some conflicting information about security against whales percentage numbers and about possible safety issues that in 7 years of development was never addressed by developers, while they were fully aware of it. So are those really safety issues or are those non-issues ? Hopefully the FAQ will provide an answer.

I just hope that DCG will stop using outdated mnowatch.org estimations on whales and their number of nodes and start using up to date mnowatch.org estimations on whales and their number of nodes.

The numbers that were used by DCG during the HPM presentation (180 nodes for 10K HPM and 450 nodes for 4K HPM) seems to be incorrect / too high .
It seems DCG was using an old mnowatch table, see : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...low-censorship-of-any-kind.53410/#post-232946

I do think it is important that both Dash current masternode network and the upcoming Dash Platform network stay decentralized and that our governance system is used to measure broad consensus among masternode owners with regards to important topics like how exactly to implement / start Dash Platform.
 
Last edited:
xkcd said:
No, I don't think we should walk away from Evo, instead, I think we should run it on a small portion of the network and allow the rest of us to concentrate on the main thing, digital cash.
Click to expand...

Your approach seems better than mine in every aspect, as it let us iterate instead of make sudden changes.

Let me double check that we are on the same page: You say that should ask DCG to focus a small percentage of the available resources (let say for example 20%) to platform-evolution, while moving focus to the main thing that is wallet and infrastructure support.

We could translate that to directives like:

- Remove all job offers related to platform.
- Limit system resources for that group.
- Start new search for wallet support developers as resources get available.

Does that sounds like a valid proposal?
 
stan.distortion said:
Other projects have already beaten us to much of platforms functionality by a few years and don't seem to be booming on account of it. Personally I think Dapps, advanced tokens etc. have practically limitless potential and are well worth perusing but how long that actually takes to take off is anyones guess and without a significant edge we're just another "me too" player at this stage. Even with an edge there's still every chance of ending up as another myspace, could be better looking for problems that need solutions rather than building a killer solution and waiting for the problems to come to us.
Click to expand...
which projects? which features?
 
TheNetworkIsBiggerThanYou said:
which projects? which features?
Click to expand...
I'll probably get a lifetime ban and my entire post history deleted if I mention projects but the only thing I can think of that hasn't been implemented elsewhere is DAPI and my knowledge is far from extensive, could be someone has beaten us to that one too. Don't get me wrong, Dash does have kick ass tech and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if our implementation of things like Masternodes and InstantSend is the best in the business but they and most of the features promised by Platform are available elsewhere, maybe Dash will implement them better but they won't be unique features.
 
eloyesp said:
Your approach seems better than mine in every aspect, as it let us iterate instead of make sudden changes.

Let me double check that we are on the same page: You say that should ask DCG to focus a small percentage of the available resources (let say for example 20%) to platform-evolution, while moving focus to the main thing that is wallet and infrastructure support.

We could translate that to directives like:

- Remove all job offers related to platform.
- Limit system resources for that group.
- Start new search for wallet support developers as resources get available.

Does that sounds like a valid proposal?
Click to expand...

My reply was regarding how to run the Platform on the masternode network, ie not on every masternode, but rather as a opt-in model.

However, I agree with everything you say about Platform, it has been a massive expense for DCG and the value likely won't be there. Funding for it should be much less and separate from the core team, we could consider shifting it out into the incubator, or starting a whole new DFO just for Platform, this could help with visibility and tracking their progress.
 
stan.distortion said:
I'll probably get a lifetime ban and my entire post history deleted if I mention projects but the only thing I can think of that hasn't been implemented elsewhere is DAPI and my knowledge is far from extensive, could be someone has beaten us to that one too. Don't get me wrong, Dash does have kick ass tech and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if our implementation of things like Masternodes and InstantSend is the best in the business but they and most of the features promised by Platform are available elsewhere, maybe Dash will implement them better but they won't be unique features.
Click to expand...
That's the thing that has me confused. DAPI is what I've been waiting for, because I always assumed that initial "D" would include the entire masternode network. But if DAPI only runs on a POS sidechain of limited distribution, that "D" loses some of its punch to differentiate us from the competition.

I've watched as centralized and semi-centralized, 100% premined or proof of stake tokens seem to implement the various features that we have promised to do "the right way" in a fully decentralized and trustless manner. Like you I'm also hoping there is still something left to differentiate us from the other projects that already took the "easy route."
 
Bridgewater said:
That's the thing that has me confused. DAPI is what I've been waiting for, because I always assumed that initial "D" would include the entire masternode network. But if DAPI only runs on a POS sidechain of limited distribution, that "D" loses some of its punch to differentiate us from the competition.

I've watched as centralized and semi-centralized, 100% premined or proof of stake tokens seem to implement the various features that we have promised to do "the right way" in a fully decentralized and trustless manner. Like you I'm also hoping there is still something left to differentiate us from the other projects that already took the "easy route."
Click to expand...

What if we had a killer problem looking for a solution? A hell of a lot of people are about to have a serious problem with energy and it's something a DAO can fix, a zero profit renewable energy network. Consumers get the offer of half price electricity in return for allowing access to a resource, be it roof space for panels, a water course for hydro, cables across land, etc. All income goes into expansion, contracts get issued for suggesting locations, making contact, surveying, installing, inspecting, etc.

That's why I've been waiting for Platform, just a nice idea up until now but recent world events have pushed up the schedule. For some countries, the time it takes to build a renewable energy infrastructure could be the difference between life or death and that's the quickest way to get the job done . Am I going to see that come to life on Platform or will some other project beat us to that one too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top